mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
	Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
	chris.redpath@arm.com, qperret@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] sched/fair: Provide u64 read for 32-bits arch helper
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:42:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yl6uKPBfOoj8ABfI@geo.homenetwork> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220412134220.1588482-2-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 02:42:14PM +0100,
Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> Introducing macro helpers u64_u32_{store,load}() to factorize lockless
> accesses to u64 variables for 32-bits architectures.
> 
> Users are for now cfs_rq.min_vruntime and sched_avg.last_update_time. To
> accommodate the later where the copy lies outside of the structure
> (cfs_rq.last_udpate_time_copy instead of sched_avg.last_update_time_copy),
> use the _copy() version of those helpers.
> 
> Those new helpers encapsulate smp_rmb() and smp_wmb() synchronization and
> therefore, have a small penalty in set_task_rq_fair() and init_cfs_rq().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 3eba0dcc4962..5dd38c9df0cc 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -600,11 +600,8 @@ static void update_min_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* ensure we never gain time by being placed backwards. */
> -	cfs_rq->min_vruntime = max_vruntime(cfs_rq->min_vruntime, vruntime);
> -#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -	smp_wmb();
> -	cfs_rq->min_vruntime_copy = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> -#endif
> +	u64_u32_store(cfs_rq->min_vruntime,
> +		      max_vruntime(cfs_rq->min_vruntime, vruntime));
>  }
>  
>  static inline bool __entity_less(struct rb_node *a, const struct rb_node *b)
> @@ -3301,6 +3298,11 @@ static inline void cfs_rq_util_change(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, int flags)
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static inline u64 cfs_rq_last_update_time(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> +{
> +	return u64_u32_load_copy(cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time,
> +				 cfs_rq->last_update_time_copy);
> +}
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
>  /*
>   * Because list_add_leaf_cfs_rq always places a child cfs_rq on the list
> @@ -3411,27 +3413,9 @@ void set_task_rq_fair(struct sched_entity *se,
>  	if (!(se->avg.last_update_time && prev))
>  		return;
>  
> -#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -	{
> -		u64 p_last_update_time_copy;
> -		u64 n_last_update_time_copy;
> -
> -		do {
> -			p_last_update_time_copy = prev->load_last_update_time_copy;
> -			n_last_update_time_copy = next->load_last_update_time_copy;
> -
> -			smp_rmb();
> +	p_last_update_time = cfs_rq_last_update_time(prev);
> +	n_last_update_time = cfs_rq_last_update_time(next);

Seperate the load of prev cfs rq and next cfs rq seems not wrong to me.

> -			p_last_update_time = prev->avg.last_update_time;
> -			n_last_update_time = next->avg.last_update_time;
> -
> -		} while (p_last_update_time != p_last_update_time_copy ||
> -			 n_last_update_time != n_last_update_time_copy);
> -	}
> -#else
> -	p_last_update_time = prev->avg.last_update_time;
> -	n_last_update_time = next->avg.last_update_time;
> -#endif
>  	__update_load_avg_blocked_se(p_last_update_time, se);
>  	se->avg.last_update_time = n_last_update_time;
>  }
> @@ -3786,8 +3770,9 @@ update_cfs_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>  	decayed |= __update_load_avg_cfs_rq(now, cfs_rq);
>  
>  #ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -	smp_wmb();
> -	cfs_rq->load_last_update_time_copy = sa->last_update_time;
> +	u64_u32_store_copy(sa->last_update_time,
> +			   cfs_rq->last_update_time_copy,
> +			   sa->last_update_time);
>  #endif
>  
>  	return decayed;
> @@ -3921,27 +3906,6 @@ static inline void update_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *s
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -static inline u64 cfs_rq_last_update_time(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> -{
> -	u64 last_update_time_copy;
> -	u64 last_update_time;
> -
> -	do {
> -		last_update_time_copy = cfs_rq->load_last_update_time_copy;
> -		smp_rmb();
> -		last_update_time = cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> -	} while (last_update_time != last_update_time_copy);
> -
> -	return last_update_time;
> -}
> -#else
> -static inline u64 cfs_rq_last_update_time(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> -{
> -	return cfs_rq->avg.last_update_time;
> -}
> -#endif
> -
>  /*
>   * Synchronize entity load avg of dequeued entity without locking
>   * the previous rq.
> @@ -6991,21 +6955,8 @@ static void migrate_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int new_cpu)
>  	if (READ_ONCE(p->__state) == TASK_WAKING) {
>  		struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
>  		struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
> -		u64 min_vruntime;
>  
> -#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -		u64 min_vruntime_copy;
> -
> -		do {
> -			min_vruntime_copy = cfs_rq->min_vruntime_copy;
> -			smp_rmb();
> -			min_vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> -		} while (min_vruntime != min_vruntime_copy);
> -#else
> -		min_vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> -#endif
> -
> -		se->vruntime -= min_vruntime;
> +		se->vruntime -= u64_u32_load(cfs_rq->min_vruntime);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING) {
> @@ -11453,10 +11404,7 @@ static void set_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool first)
>  void init_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>  {
>  	cfs_rq->tasks_timeline = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> -	cfs_rq->min_vruntime = (u64)(-(1LL << 20));
> -#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -	cfs_rq->min_vruntime_copy = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> -#endif
> +	u64_u32_store(cfs_rq->min_vruntime, (u64)(-(1LL << 20)));
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  	raw_spin_lock_init(&cfs_rq->removed.lock);
>  #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 762be73972bd..e2cf6e48b165 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -513,6 +513,45 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth { };
>  
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED */
>  
> +/*
> + * u64_u32_load/u64_u32_store
> + *
> + * Use a copy of a u64 value to protect against data race. This is only
> + * applicable for 32-bits architectures.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> +# define u64_u32_load_copy(var, copy)       var
> +# define u64_u32_store_copy(var, copy, val) (var = val)
> +#else
> +# define u64_u32_load_copy(var, copy)					\
> +({									\
> +	u64 __val, __val_copy;						\
> +	do {								\
> +		__val_copy = copy;					\
> +		/*							\
> +		 * paired with u64_u32_store, ordering access		\
> +		 * to var and copy.					\
> +		 */							\
> +		smp_rmb();						\
> +		__val = var;						\
> +	} while (__val != __val_copy);					\
> +	__val;								\
> +})
> +# define u64_u32_store_copy(var, copy, val)				\
> +do {									\
> +	typeof(val) __val = (val);					\
> +	var = __val;							\
> +	/*								\
> +	 * paired with u64_u32_load, ordering access to var and		\
> +	 * copy.							\
> +	 */								\
> +	smp_wmb();							\
> +	copy = __val;							\

`copy = __val;` should be `copy = var`.

If var equal to val we do not need to do store. Check this condition
in the above macro to avoid a redundant store.

 if (var != __val)
   var = __val;

Catching up a little and droping a little..

Thanks,
Tao
> +} while (0)
> +#endif
> +# define u64_u32_load(var)      u64_u32_load_copy(var, var##_copy)
> +# define u64_u32_store(var, val) u64_u32_store_copy(var, var##_copy, val)
> +
>  /* CFS-related fields in a runqueue */
>  struct cfs_rq {
>  	struct load_weight	load;
> @@ -553,7 +592,7 @@ struct cfs_rq {
>  	 */
>  	struct sched_avg	avg;
>  #ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> -	u64			load_last_update_time_copy;
> +	u64			last_update_time_copy;
>  #endif
>  	struct {
>  		raw_spinlock_t	lock ____cacheline_aligned;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-19 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-12 13:42 [PATCH v3 0/7] feec() energy margin removal Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 1/7] sched/fair: Provide u64 read for 32-bits arch helper Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-19 12:42   ` Tao Zhou [this message]
2022-04-22 11:10     ` Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 2/7] sched/fair: Decay task PELT values during wakeup migration Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-19 10:08   ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-19 12:23     ` Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-19 16:27       ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-20  9:34         ` Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-20 10:25           ` Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-21  7:36           ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-22 15:14   ` Tao Zhou
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 3/7] sched, drivers: Remove max param from effective_cpu_util()/sched_cpu_util() Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 4/7] sched/fair: Rename select_idle_mask to select_rq_mask Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 5/7] sched/fair: Use the same cpumask per-PD throughout find_energy_efficient_cpu() Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/fair: Remove task_util from effective utilization in feec() Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-12 13:42 ` [PATCH v4 7/7] sched/fair: Remove the energy margin " Vincent Donnefort
2022-04-14 19:32 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] feec() energy margin removal Dietmar Eggemann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Yl6uKPBfOoj8ABfI@geo.homenetwork \
    --to=tao.zhou@linux.dev \
    --cc=chris.redpath@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.donnefort@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®